Is that in RL or FHL? If in RL, I can see that. In FH...not likely. P38 loses speed too quickly to attempt that and accelerates too slowly.
Brit report of THEIR p-38 ? Hope that wasn't the one with : No dive flap/anti-compressability flap No turbo charged engine No counter rotating props
anyone is free to work with spitfireperformance.com (or other good data) and to present to developers any huge difference between reports and fhl. almost anybody renounces to do that (in ol' times that work usually was performed by hohun, illo, zembla and under some pressure squirl)
You're right. I forgot about that. I remember reading that in some books and documentaries on the Lightnings. There were many different variations like that in each theater. I spent hours upon hours researching P-38 information years back which the devs kept refusing, refuting, and fighting me. Even had really cool relevant training and modern day videos of the aircraft's performance. Since then I've been able to personally look over and watch a real functioning P-38 in person take off, fly, and perform, as well interview an actual P-38 recon pilot at that airshow. That was awesome. Anyway, I eventually gave up and just left FH for a couple years. The P-38 was favored over the P-51 and P-47 in some of those theaters because of versatility, performance and reliability/dependability/durability. I don't want to smack or argue with the developers as I still think they're doing a great job that we aren't will to undertake.
http://p38assn.org/aboutp38.htm From: http://www.pilotfriend.com/photo_albums/timeline/ww2/2/Lockheed P 38.htm "... The P-38Ds were also the first to bear the name Lightning, which was the designation allocated to this aircraft when ordered for the RAF by the British Purchasing Commission of 1940. Some 667 were ordered, these being Lockheed Model 322s, and either because of an oversight on the part of the Commission (and this seems the more likely explanation), or because of an export ban on the engine/turbocharger combination, the first three examples, supplied to Britain as Model 322-61s, were considered to have inadequate performance when tested and the entire order was cancelled. These Lightning Is, as designated by the RAF, had two 1,150 hp (858 kW) Allison V-1710-C15 (R) engines without turbochargers and, as indicated by the R suffix, both were of right-hand rotation. Testing by the USAAF, following their acceptance of the 140 outstanding on the first British order, confirmed the RAF's findings and they were used only for various training and experimental purposes under the designation P-322. The balance of 524, representing the second British order, which were to have had the standard P-38 engine installation (Lockheed Model 322-60 and allocated the British designation Lightning II), were absorbed into USAAF contracts and were produced as either P-38F or P-38G Lightnings. ..."
let's talk without John Ross if you provide us with climb, roll, speed, turn charts similar to spitperf-com's ones, we will gladly model lighting according to your information. everything that i saw before is "could outrun everything" or "killed tiger with brownings once". may be you have at least tactical trials like usaf made for f4u-1 vs fw 190 a-5 or frenches for d.520 vs 109 e-3? p.s. i read pilotfriens-like texts many times. only general historical information without a clue how to beat 190.
How's this: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/p-38/p-38.html You may find this website helpful too: http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/
we read it every evening though not 38 chapters, because we haven't signals about p-38 mismodelling. all-right, we will recheck 38j and l.
P-38 is very big and heavy plane with realtively low (for a fighter) eng power to weight relation and very big wingload. It has common NACA airfoil, same or almost same has FW-190, Lagg3, La5/7, F4U, its only features are relatively big wing span (good for Cy/Cx relation of the wing) and maneuver flaps sinse P-38G. It has good speed and operational radius, but it has nothing for acceleration and climb better than not bad. Reading real pilots u can see that P-38 was good for group fight at high alts, no real pilots exept may be some from eastern front (both sides) minds FH-style duels below 2-3k saying any plane was good or bad. And in this way P-38 works good at FH too. If any could organize buff mission at ~8km alt, with cover, P-38 could work as good as it was IRL. The only thing P-38 could do better than it does at FH is keeping energy in boom-zoom, should be one of the best or the best plane from this side. And among the fastest in dive. In FH too, especially with flaps it is very easy, using them it can evade in tight low speed spiral even 109. Our P-38f is P-38G really .
I think this point gets exaggerated a lot because people tend to forget that 2 engines with 1,500 hp each generate more forward thrust than one engine with 3,000 hp. Just because an engine can put out x amount of hp doesn't mean it can actually convert all of that power to forward thrust. Naturally, there are limits to how much power your propeller(s) can actually apply to the air flowing past its blades. So while the power / weight ratio of the P-38 may seem like nothing to write home about, I bet its thrust / weight ratio would probably be a good deal better than that.
We can estimate thrust effect of 2x engine by max speed data, comparing it with, for example, F4U-1 (same airfoil and about same wing area). And we see that P-38 is slower though it has 2x1500 hp vs 2000 - 2200 hp. http://www.wwiiaircraftperformance.org/f4u/17930-level.jpg Also P-38 is already modelled much better than it could be according to "dry" numbers. At least free host's P-38j can climb 4000f/m at sea level, accelerates very fast from 200 to 300 mph and easily outturns any 109 or 190 using flaps. And handles good without flaps too. I think main factors are wing aspect ratio and no torque from engines, giving stability at low speed and they are already taken into account. I find todays P-38 is realistic enough, very interesting to use and effective plane and trying to revise it we can make only worse.
I don't agree. The P-38 is a much draggier airframe, so of course its top speed will be lower. Yeah, but (correct me if I'm wrong) drag really only becomes a problem at high speeds. Top speed wise, the P-38's draggy airframe plus the fact that it has an extra propeller will probably work against it. But in terms of climb rate and accleration from lower speeds, having 2 propellers instead of 1 should be an advantage.
By the way, gil, I'm personally not at all complaining about Freehost's P-38, if that's the impression you were getting. FH's Lightning is a solid performer and can take on most planes on a near equal footing. P.S. Except for its tendency to have hits in virtually any part of the airframe magically result in pilot kills. Grrr. More P.S.: And for the record, I agree that the Lightning probably turns a bit too well at very low speeds.
Also ... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contra-rotating_propellers EDIT: Bah, forget it. My bad. This is about contra-rotating propellers, not counter-rotating ones.
Words about its FH model were more for men who made exec talking about recheck of late P-38, and for exec himself. Hmm, agree, it can explain its performance in this way.
23mm VYa- was this gun so strong IRL too? I tried Lagg and it's awesome! Trajectory like 20mm, damage better (subjective feeling) than the current 30mm, one hit is enough for every plane. And next big difference- range for 30mm is just to D3 now i think and for 23mm D1.000.000 ... imho quite unfair, isn't it? Look, 30mm was great irl because fighters could open fire earlier than buff's ottos, here? From d3? You are a dead meat @d5 when u attack some 4 engine buff or Pe-2/TBF. I understand that this solution is against sprayers (but why not for other gunns too? Mainly for laser 12mm... ). D3.... it's rly bad joke.
vya is good, though heavy (but still lighter than ns-37) mk 108 had short aiming range the rest of message is useless after reading the topic beginning.
